Bush move on endangered species could have long-lasting effects

The Bush administration justified its just-announced changes in policy on the Endangered Species Act by focusing on its decision to grant “threatened” status to the polar bear, and that was the focus of much of the publicity surrounding the controversial decision. (Example: Greenpeace’s press release was headlined “Greenpeace Statement on Bush Administration’s Further Weakening of Protection for the Polar Bear.”)

This gives us a chance to dig out one of our favorite photos in our photo library. Yes, we know we’re falling prey here to the same tendency to over-emphasize the polar bear we’re writing about in this post. But it’s really hard to get a picture of a Section 7 consultation. Photo (minus Photoshopped water wings)/NOAA’s Kathy Crane

But a change that’s getting less attention could have even further-reaching effects. It basically takes federal wildlife agencies out of the picture when the government is deciding whether to, say, build a bridge or a dam, or allow a mining company to dig into public land.

The new policy makes it optional to do a “Section 7 consultation” in which a government agency like the Department of Transportation or the Army Corps of Engineers — to name two who do a fair amount of damage — had to check in with either the National Marine Fisheries Service of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and sometimes both, before proceeding with a project.

The regulations announced yesterday — not unexpected — drew an immediate broadside in the form of a lawsuit filed in the Northern District of California by Greenpeace, the Center for Biological Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife. It says:

The Regulations also drastically weaken long-established regulatory standards (adopted by the Reagan Administration in 1986) that have governed the section 7 consultation process, by replacing those standards with vague, incoherent, and undefined terms that will invariably lead to inconsistent application, agency confusion, increased litigation, and, most important, decreased protection for species already on the brink of extinction.

This story by Julie Cart at the LA Times and this one by the New York Times’ Felicity Barringer correctly got to the heart of the matter in their ledes — bully for them! If you’re into the polar bear angle — which is about making sure the bears’ threatened status doesn’t make for any actual changes in the way we do business — go here.